Has Obama put human rights on the back burner?

Observers worry the administration is muting criticism because of Central Asia's strategic importance

ALMATY, Kazakhstan — As the United States re-fortifies its
presence in Central Asia — planting military bases and extending
supply lines to neighboring Afghanistan — many observers are
asking if Washington's human rights agenda will take a backseat to a
more steely-eyed realpolitik.

In Almaty and Bishkek and Osh, as well as other cities around this
strategic but remote region, an impression is already forming that the
Obama administration is softening its criticism of local authoritarian
regimes so as not to risk annoying them and thereby jeopardizing the
war against the Taliban.

"It now seems that the U.S. is very quiet on everything," said one
Western official in Kyrgyzstan who wished to maintain anonymity because
he was not authorized to speak to the press. "Their silence is
striking." The five Central Asian states have flitted in and out of
Washington's radar since the Soviet Union's breakup in 1991. First seen
as free market democracies in the making, they assumed added importance
with the recognition that their bountiful oil and gas reserves could
supply Western markets.

Then, after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, Central Asia's position
became important to the U.S. strategy for striking back. Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan and Tajikistan border Afghanistan and were used as transit
points, while the U.S. also set up major bases in Uzbekistan and
Kyrgyzstan. (Germany and France also established operations in the
area.)

There were setbacks, however, in the strengthening of U.S. ties with
the region. In May 2005, Uzbek government forces in the city of Andijan
opened fire on a crowd of primarily peaceful demonstrators who had
gathered after militants attacked a local prison and then took
hostages. Hundreds were possibly killed. Washington criticized the
government's actions and aided in the airlift of refugees from the
region. After that, Tashkent kicked the U.S. from its air base in the
country's south.

More recently, Kyrgyzstan announced the ejection of American forces
from Manas Air Base, a major troop transit and refueling center.
Bishkek however reversed its decision in June when the U.S. upped the
total amount it was paying from about $17 million to close to $180
million.

Now the U.S. is sending more troops to Afghanistan, where the fight
is escalating. At the same time, the main supply route through
Pakistan's Khyber Pass is looking increasingly tenuous, making Central
Asia more essential than ever. In addition to maintaining their grip on
Manas, U.S. officials negotiated the opening of a new base in
Uzbekistan, as well as transit agreements with Tajikistan and
Kazakhstan.

But the increased American presence has been paralleled by an
assault on civic freedoms. The former Soviet Republics of Central Asia
have never been the most democracy-friendly locations, and their
governments now are either totalitarian or "authoritarian lite" —
that is, with room for limited public debate, but still fully under the
control of a supreme leader.

Kazakhstan recently introduced a draconian internet law, while
Kyrgyzstan conducted by some measures the worst elections in the
nation's history. Uzbek officials regularly jail and torture
dissidents, and recently sentenced a leading independent journalist to
12 years in prison for forgery and extortion. Human rights defenders
say the charges were politically motivated.

In general the U.S. reaction to the new round of abuses has been
tepid, observers say.

"All this leaves the impression that pragmatic interests and
concerns are contributing to a muted U.S. response to human rights
abuses in the region, which is unhelpful and disappointing," said
Veronika Szente Goldston, Europe and Central Asia advocate for Human
Rights Watch. Szente Goldston said that her organization was hoping for
an improvement over the previous U.S. administration, which despite its
pro-democracy rhetoric was also weak on human rights. "We hoped that
this would change, but so far there has been no reset button of any
kind."

"Human rights seem to have taken a back-burner position," she
added.

(U.S. officials, despite numerous attempts, were not available for
an on-the-record comment.)

For many, however, it is not as simple as trading human rights and
democracy for landing and transit privileges. Analysts and officials,
off the record, said that U.S. engagement remains strong, and criticism
is voiced, if only behind closed doors. The enhanced U.S. presence
increases leverage, they said.

"When dialogue is pursued by public statements out of the embassy
and Washington, it means that dialogue is diminished," said one western
official in the region, speaking off the record.

But others point to the fact that U.S. criticism of the Central
Asian regimes since Sept. 11, 2001 has often been muted, seemingly in
concern for the bases' continued existence. After Andijan, U.S.
government officials were said to have preferred a softer line, but
were pushed into action by their European counterparts.

In the end, however, the administration will lean toward
accommodation of the regimes, simply because U.S. operations —
and U.S. lives — in Afghanistan outweigh any other
considerations, said Martha Brill Olcott, senior associate at Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

"A response to human rights violations in Central Asia would be
measured against the yardstick of increasing the risk of loss of
American lives in Afghanistan — that's what it boils down to,"
she said.

"We would say things, but not do things," Brill Olcott added. "The
question is whether we are capable of that kind of nuanced
response."